I wonder, did the McCain campaign know about this?

I think this is one more piece of evidence that Palin was a last-minute, un-vetted, pick.

Yes, I know the McCain campaign claims foreknowledge, but I don't believe that one bit.

I agree with the sentiment that Bristol herself should be left alone, but I think Palin should get grilled about the kind of example this sets for the first family, and to explain her position on sex education, what sorts of things she'd told her daughter about sex, does she know the father, approve of the relationship, etc.

After all, imagine if Obama had a pregnant teenage daughter. It'd be 24/7 focus on that, and forget hurricane Gustav.

Let me put it another way. Abstinence is like saying the best way to avoid from getting injured in a car wreck is to not drive or ride in a car.

As opposed to other methods of sex education which would be like saying, if you’re going to drive a car wear a seat belt, learn to drive defensively, make sure your vehicle is road safe, don’t drive under the influence, only ride with people you know are good drivers etc etc.

If you only teach a person not to drive, and not how to drive safely if they do decide to drive what sort of position do you leave them in? Isn’t the teacher responsible for giving the best information available? Does that not make the teacher in some way responsible if they insist that not driving is the only thing that should be taught in order to avoid getting in a car accident, or a hypocrite if time after time people in ‘don’t drive’ driver’s education keep getting into car accidents? So yeah, the person driving is responsible, but so is the dumbass who’s best solution for driver’s education was to not drive.

>> ^nadabu:

First off, that was a wonderful comment, and that's why I always hate the whole abortion debate, because I empathize with the pro-life argument.

I think calling it murder is associating it with the wrong crime. I think it's more like partial suicide, since the baby can't survive without the mother, and I don't think anyone has premeditated the malicious killing of their own child when they're having an abortion.

Attempting suicide is illegal, but it doesn't seem to have stopped people from doing it.

The pro-choice argument isn't about diminishing the life of the baby, it's about trying to keep these partial suicides from turning into full-on suicide, because banning abortions won't stop them from happening, but it will stop them from being done in a fashion that puts the mother at risk.

The other half of the argument, and the half that's gone neglected much of the time is that we do want to reduce the number of abortions, primarily by reducing unwanted pregnancies through sex education, and access to contraceptives.

That said, I always find myself wavering about this topic when it really gets discussed, and I'd really like to find a compromise on it that a) ensures it's rare b) ensures the safety of the mother c) isn't based on religious dogma.

The sci-fi fan in me says the whole thing would become moot if we had a way to transfer the fetus to an artificial womb. That way the former-mother would have the baby gone right away, but it could still be carried to term, and adopted.

Maybe the answer is to pour money into that, I don't know.

Since I can't resist the political angles, I've got to point out that Bob Barr's ex-wife says he consented to her having an abortion while they were still married (and Larry Flynt of all people presented evidence that supported the claim). Also, Bob Barr voted for the Patriot act just a few short years ago when he was a hardline Republican.

If you want Obama to win...vote for him!

>> ^LittleRed:
I do find it interesting that someone that professes to be a high-esteemed and very involved member of a Christian church is pro-choice in situations other than rape or health issues.

Not all Christians share the view that the only/best way to reduce abortions is by outlawing the practice.

Some think that just removes doctors from the situation, and just compounds the tragedy of the abortion with a risk of harm to the mother.

Some Christians think we should be giving kids real sex education, including an encouragement to use contraceptives, and possibly even providing easy access to them.

Personally, I'm pro-Choice, mostly because every woman I've personally asked about it has said it shouldn't be illegal. Not that we should encourage the practice, but it should be on the table.

I also don't have any kind of organized religion in me, so I find myself perpetually confused on how religion comes to believe they know an absolute truth about this, but that's a whole other discussion.

Hahhahaha how ignorant you are....Romance and sex lol yeah right, selling sex toys for a living "romance" wow....I don't have time to spend on ignorance like this. Go and sell your stuff, leave my name alone and stop this! *Clicks Ignore Button*


In reply to this comment by LittleRed:
I'm certainly not jealous. My boyfriend is a member here, and is a more-than-contributing member. There is also a huge difference in promoting romance and sex education for a job and blaring my relationship across every page possible. I don't have to go to profiles to read others' comments. Last I checked, lovey-dovey comments aren't just on profiles. They clutter up video threads and SiftTalk, along with blogs. It's impossible to miss.

P.S. If I want to leave someone a comment saying I left you a comment once upon a time, I'll do so. You're not my mother.

In reply to this comment by LadyDeath:
Did I read my name here again?? God you love me don't you?! lol I think somebody is jealous about others love comments in here, do you have a problem with that? You don't have to go other peoples profile to read love comments that is their own business don't you think...you are just so nosy, tell your boyfriend to join the sift (if he is not already here,well I think he is) so we can read your lovey dovey comments too. Oh, I forgot you DON'T discuss your love life here but you make "passion parties" "Where Everyday is Valentine's Day" for a living..ok

You are here just to judge people for stupid reasons and you don't contribute to this website at all....

Stop mentioning me to other people, directly or indirectly...



It's obvious to even a blind person that the two are dating. They spread their stickily sweet lovey-dovey relationship on every comment written, every blog post, even their profile. Maybe internet relationships just have to communicate their attachment to everyone in fear the next internet girl or guy will steal their partner away? I don't understand the meaning behind that, and I do find it curious that the only two couples on here who aren't content with making the occasional comfortable relationship comment (i.e. Issykitty and DFT OR laura and DonJuan, OR Dag and Persephone) are long-distance, on another continent couples. Ugh. That aside, it's obvious they're dating. Anyone who makes a comment like "Maybe we should talk" is OBVIOUSLY not intending that as a pick-up line, especially with a militant boyfriend around the corner.

If you want to label me as a feminist, I will proudly accept that label. However, unlike some, I don't want to give a bad name to feminists for my views. By that, I mean I don't speak for anyone else or females in general when I say what I do. I think it's disgusting that she's running to someone else to do her dirty work, and even blames that on the fact that she's female and has had less-than-perfect interactions with men in the past. Do I scorn her for showing "feminine" traits in this situation? If you want to consider those "feminine traits," be my guest. I see weakness and a complete lack of self-respect, or self-confidence. She purports to be extremely confident in her relationship, to the point that she allows her boyfriend, as long as he's on another continent, to watch porn. [Considering that's the way their relationship is, fine. But when her views on porn in anything other than a long-distance relationship are the same or similar to the ones thepinky and I were trying to share, she shouldn't have acted so self-righteous.] Yet at the same time, she's not comfortable enough to have a strange guy make a perfectly innocent, somewhat flirtatious comment, and neither is her boyfriend.

In addition, I do not "continuously troll a website with [my] snide comments." Sure, I may contribute a snide comment on occasion - the only two I can think of outside this discussion are the comment to LadyDeath about how she should apologize for quoting thepinky on the porn thread, and to K0MMIE when he attacked me in his post on the same topic. No, I may not contribute much video-wise. As I've said before, I joined for the discussion; I'm not a vote whore. In topics that are not emotionally charged or sexist, my comments are well-thought-out and generally appreciated. I have several comments from the first few months I joined that, if the comment voting system had been in place, I would have a star by now. Sure, maybe that doesn't negate the fact that what I have said recently, some people may consider out of line. Then again, I don't have to answer to anyone but myself.

Written By LittleRed

And we already know her policy on sex education.

Am not surprised Alien_concept, I mean up until recently the American governments stance was that kids just don't have sex and wait until marriage. They poured millions into the abstinence programs, while letting sex education suffer.

I think they spent all that money on those stupid promise rings.

>> ^K0MMIE:

1) The way of judging whether or not a video stays is if you, a MAN, get an erection after watching. When was the last time a woman's perspective was taken into consideration? Never. Chances are women either feel objectified or get irritated for whatever reason watching a video like the one that prompted this post. I know I did. But because someone with a vagina posted it and the rest of the boys like it, it won't be removed. The thumbnail blares her breasts across the front page (or did for several hours yesterday), forcing me to not visit the front page at all either at work or at home, because I don't want my boss or my parents walking over and seeing that, and yet no one has felt the need to change it. If I could, I would.
K0MMIE's RESPONSE: You feel the human body is a shameful, and sexual activity should be repressed. Sorry we men like talking about our feelings, even if those feelings are carnal.

I don't feel the naked body is "a shameful" at all. I make money off other people's sex lives. I've been a sex educator since my freshman year of high school, and I have been a Passion Parties consultant since I was 18 - I help women in every aspect of their lives, from a college girl wondering why her boyfriend is incapable of ejaculation unless he's masturbating, to the 74-year-old woman wanting something to help her with Kegel exercises.

Though I certainly don't get where you came up with "You feel the human body is a shameful" from "The thumbnail blares her breasts across the front page and I don't want [anyone] walking over and seeing that."


2) Go take a look at some of the comments thepinky listed earlier, or any comments on a video where the woman is hot, or a stripper, or that stupid Wii Fit video... any of them. That is another reason I've grown to dislike the Sift. I joined for the discussion, not for the videos. I don't have a working TV in my house. I have never gone to see a movie in theaters that I have paid for, and the only DVDs I own were gifts. Do I give a shit about the videos? As a general rule, no. If I see something that I feel objectifies women, yes. But the discussion - is there anything to discuss with a bunch of pigs? No. Form intelligent discussion, please.
K0MMIE's RESPONSE: Anything to discuss with a bunch of pigs? I'm a pig now? At least we get out of the house a bit. I guess I have nothing in common with a crazy cat lady who has a bad case of cabin fever.


Oh, please. Anyone can tell from looking at the discussion on any video that the site is dominated by men. On a documentary I was honestly excited to see on here [and hoped would prompt some discussion, at least among the ladies], the first comment? "oOOh, Honkers!!!" And a few down: "T*ts or GTFO." And comments like yours earlier - "Shut up and show me your boobies." If the aim of the admins is to make the site more gender-friendly, I honestly don't believe it'll happen. "Boys will be boys," and no one's going to stop them. After a while, pretending to ignore all the shit gets old.


3) Sausage fests promote and encourage nasty man behavior - something that would never be acceptable at home. For all the men who watched and voted for that video, how do you think your girlfriend would feel if she came home and saw you watching some other woman's breasts bouncing around your screen? I'll tell you. Pissed. Irritated. Livid. Betrayed. Hurt. Just because it doesn't give you a raging erection doesn't mean it's not porn, or that it is in the least bit acceptable.
K0MMIE's RESPONSE: See, again you're assuming our better half's are sexually repressed and terrified of their own naked body. Mine's not. None of my friends are either. My gf saw the thumbnail, watched the video, and enjoyed it. Don't assume everyone has your values, and we should be judged by them as well. This is the internet, and until some politician decides otherwise, you're gonna get ALL our opinions, not just the ones that you think are worth hearing.

Fine. I'm not asking for opinions to be filtered. I'm just trying to share my own and getting shot down by someone who apparently doesn't want to hear mine, but will tear it apart and give me his.

I'm also not assuming anything about your girlfriend's values. I used the phrase "came home" because since most of the guys on here are at least well into their twenties and many of them talk about families, I assumed most of you had found someone to settle down with, or were at least living with a girlfriend. If that's not the case, you can completely ignore that last point. When you're living on your own, do what you want. But when you make the sacrifice and move in with someone, you're a fool if you believe your wife/girlfriend is okay with coming home to find you watching some woman strip, regardless of how poorly it was executed. That's what I was trying to convey.



I wouldn't complain if everything with the NSFW tag that wasn't tagged that way because of language was taken off the Sift. Those stupid videos have caused enough problems in my personal life.
K0MMIE's RESPONSE:The fact that a video on a fucking web site has caused you personal life problems, says it all. Turn of the glow box with the klik-klak keys, and do something else.


Maybe I shouldn't have worded it that way. But boys will be boys, as all of you have clearly shown at one time or another on this site. And as I said before, sausage fests promote and encourage nasty man behavior. There are things I've seen said on here that I never would've expected from people I know.

Let's take stock of the republican platform planks that self-ascribed republican "values voters" support:

1. Anti-homosexuality
2. Warmongering foreign policy
3. Pro-censorship of "obscenity"
4. Abstinence-only sex "education" that does not include information about contraceptives.
5. Cutting funding from all kinds of government programs aimed at helping the poor.
6. Official government support of monotheism over all other forms of religious belief via school prayer, the pledge of allegiance, "in god we trust", etc.
7. Complaining about their tax dollars going to fund abortion while at the same time forcing atheists to fund monotheism with their tax dollars.


"Values Voters" are morally bankrupt.

Sorry I haven't responded to your latest message. I have read it a few times over and am processing...

In reply to this comment by jwray:
In reply to this comment by quantumushroom
NO, but curiously "by law", public tv is supposed to be "balanced." It is not, but that's government. I don't mind liberal viewpoints on PBS or anywhere else, but there's no debate if there's no one speaking for the other side.

Yes, but should it be balanced between creationism and evolution, or balanced between flat-earth theory and round-earth theory? Should it be balanced between astrology and astronomy?

I don't see evangelicals as having the kind of impact or posing the kind of threat liberals credit them with being. The so-called Religious Right has no legislation out there that's getting anywhere

These are some things the Religious Right has helped do lately:

1. Abstinence-only sex education that wastes billions of federal dollars while preserving ignorance about sex.
2. The creation of the OFBCI for the sole purpose of funneling federal dollars into Evangelical Christian organizations.
3. Meddling in the Schaivo family.
4. Many successful ballot initiatives in states, prohibiting gay marriage.
5. Electing a few boards of education that want to teach creationism instead of evolution
6. Keeping anti-sodomy laws on the books, including seldom-enforced laws against oral sex.



Both sides accuse the others' scientists of being paid shills. 'Denial of global warming' implies there's solid proof of anthropogenic global warming. So far that's not the case; there is only a consensus among a portion of scientists. The thing I'm not keen on is the GW proponents, after suggesting the price tage for a "cleanup" of water vapor would be 45 trillion worldwide, also admit the positive effects of a Kyoto would be minimal at best.

Which "GW proponent" suggested removing water vapor from the atmosphere to combat global warming? That's daft. Do you at least agree that the rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 since 1800 is anthropogenic?
graph

The ice core records show that CO2 levels never exceeded 305ppm during the ice age cycles of the previous million years.

I don't think anyone on the pro-choice side of the fence is "pro-abortion". I think any reasonable person on either side of the issue agrees that they should be rare things indeed.

The whole abortion debate usually gets sidetracked into a religion vs. science debate, and while on a philosophical level it's an argument worth having about when exactly in the reproductive process the mass of cells should be viewed as a person, it really only has bearing when we talk about compromises like limiting how late into a pregnancy abortion should be legal.

When we're talking in the context of an absolute ban, it more goes to a practicality issue -- if a woman is determined to abort a child, removing doctors from the equation isn't going to do anything except make the situation more dangerous for the mother.

I'm fully in favor of requiring any woman who wants an abortion talk to a counselor who tries to convince them adoption is the moral choice, but I think ultimately it's up to the mother, because it simply will be no matter what laws or penalties you put in place.

I think all the energy expended trying to ban abortion should be aimed at trying to prevent the unwanted pregnancies, through realistic sex education, and ready access to contraceptives.

When it comes down to it, parents don't get to decide when their kids have sex, they just get to decide how much information they have about it, and how easy it is for them to get contraceptives.

I call wanting to create a town where you control all the content on the Zealot level of religion. For the record I also happen to think creating an atheist only town, where everything is controlled to reflect atheist values (whatever those maybe) equally insane.

But perhaps its the Thomas More Law Center, which under the guise of religious freedom has pushed to indoctrinate religious values into the government even more than they already are. To this end they have used litigation to push anti-gay agendas, intelligent design, pro-life, and even anti-sex education. So that's why all the Tom 'hate'. I'm not going to buy a product from someone who has founded a legal team dedicated to imposing religious values on a secular nation.

Dupe: http://www.videosift.com/video/Monty-Python-and-the-Meaning-of-life-sex-education

I'm not alleging that most Christians are Westboro types , nor that they hold crazy views that are nearly as damaging as the crazy crap those people are up to (you jumped to that all by yourself)... I'm just saying, that the typically 'Christian' attitude regarding sex and everything surrounding it, is often at odds with the current attitudes and practices of modern society and has only served to fuel arguments such as this one, or in other cases, hinder proper responses to situations, am thinking of abstinence based sex education as an example.

In any case, in regards to overpopulation, I was not speaking of the here and the now, but the future. If we continue to reproduce at the rate we have in the last 100 years (highly inflated due to innovations in medicine and agriculture) we will undoubtedly begin to run out of resources, and I'm not talking about food, but other, less renewable ones, like oil, water, rainforests, and yes, even personal space. I also never said anything about stopping to reproduce altogether (quit inferring so damn much from my statements!) just help curb its seemingly run away growth and find some sort of balance as a species within our environment.

My argument though, that gays would be a boon to meeting this end, however, is based on the assumption that homosexuals do not breed or somehow lack the impetus to, and last night, when I was doing something completely non-Sift related, I realized that this assumption was false and in the end my dream of a population equilibrium was yet again dashed. You see, we are forgetting here that many gays and lesbians do in fact still have that desire to bear offspring and nurture children (lesbians perhaps more than gay men), and seek out alternative methods to attain this goal of procreation... granted, many do adopt (when they are allowed to), but a good many others use artificial insemination, surrogates, etc.

I still don't think, however, that one can effectively argue that homosexuality just should not be solely because the parts don't fit, or because they cannot reproduce in the 'natural' sense, or that it is immoral based on something written two millennia ago, which its followers only cherry pick passages to follow in the first place. We could go around and around about this forever, but I'm afraid none of us would budge on our viewpoints.

Is it just me or does parts of this video remind you of one of those sex education films of sperm swimming "into port"?